Climate Change
Federal Agencies Should Do More to Make Funding Reports Clearer and Encourage Progress on Two Voluntary Programs Gao ID: GAO-06-1126T September 27, 2006The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reports on federal funding for climate research and to develop technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, among other things. The Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), which coordinates many agencies' activities, also reports on science funding. The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Climate Leaders and the Department of Energy's (DOE's) Climate VISION programs aim to reduce such emissions through voluntary industry efforts. This testimony is based on GAO's August 2005 report Climate Change: Federal Reports on Climate Change Funding Should Be Clearer and More Complete (GAO-05-461) and its April 2006 report Climate Change: EPA and DOE Should Do More to Encourage Progress Under Two Voluntary Programs (GAO-06-97), which addressed (1) reported changes in federal climate change funding and (2) the status and progress of two federal voluntary climate programs.
Federal funding for climate change, as reported by OMB, increased from $2.35 billion in 1993 to $5.09 billion in 2004 (117 percent), or from $3.28 billion to $5.09 billion (55 percent) after adjusting for inflation. OMB reports show that, during this period, funding increased for technology, science, and--before adjusting for inflation--international assistance. CCSP, which reports only science funding, generally presented totals that were consistent with OMB's, but provided more detail. However, changes in reporting methods used by both OMB and CCSP limit the comparability of funding data over time, and therefore it was unclear whether total funding actually increased as reported. Furthermore, we were unable to compare changes in the fourth category (climate-related tax expenditures), because from 1993 to 2004 OMB reported estimates for proposed but not existing tax expenditures. With regard to individual agencies' funding, OMB reported that 12 of the 14 agencies receiving funding for climate change programs in 2004 received more funding in that year than they had in 1993, but it is unclear whether funding changed as OMB reported because of unexplained changes in what was defined as climate change funding. Reported funding for DOE, the agency with the most reported climate-related funding in 2004, increased from $963 million to $2.52 billion (162 percent), or from $1.34 billion to $2.52 billion (88 percent) after adjusting for inflation. DOE and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration accounted for 81 percent of the reported increase in funding from 1993 through 2004. However, because agency funding totals are composed of individual accounts, changes in the reports' contents, such as the unexplained addition of accounts to the technology category, limit the comparability of agencies' funding data over time, making it difficult to determine if these are real or definitional increases. EPA and DOE expected participants in their voluntary climate programs to complete several program steps within general time frames, but participants' progress in completing those steps within the time frames was mixed. Furthermore, DOE did not have a system for tracking groups' progress in completing program steps, and neither DOE nor EPA had a written policy specifying the consequences for participants not proceeding as expected. In addition, EPA and DOE had both estimated the share of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions attributable to participants in their respective programs and were working through an interagency process to quantify emissions reductions attributable to their programs. However, determining reductions attributable to each program will be challenging because of the overlap between these programs and other voluntary programs and because it is difficult to determine how much of a participant's emissions reductions can be attributed to its participation in the program, since the participant's emissions in the absence of the program cannot be known.
GAO-06-1126T, Climate Change: Federal Agencies Should Do More to Make Funding Reports Clearer and Encourage Progress on Two Voluntary Programs
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-1126T
entitled 'Climate Change: Federal Agencies Should Do More to make
Funding Reports Clearer and Encourage Progress on Two Voluntary
Programs' which was released on July 27, 2006.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on Energy and Resources, Committee on
Government Reform, House of Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery Expected at 2:00 p.m. EDT:
Wednesday, September 27, 2006:
Climate Change:
Federal Agencies Should Do More to Make Funding Reports Clearer and
Encourage Progress on Two Voluntary Programs:
Statement of John B. Stephenson, Director Natural Resources and
Environment:
GAO-06-1126T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-06-1126T, testimony before the Subcommittee on Energy
and Resources, Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reports on federal funding
for climate research and to develop technologies to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions, among other things. The Climate Change Science Program
(CCSP), which coordinates many agencies‘ activities, also reports on
science funding. The Environmental Protection Agency‘s (EPA‘s) Climate
Leaders and the Department of Energy‘s (DOE‘s) Climate VISION programs
aim to reduce such emissions through voluntary industry efforts.
This testimony is based on GAO‘s August 2005 report Climate Change:
Federal Reports on Climate Change Funding Should Be Clearer and More
Complete (GAO-05-461) and its April 2006 report Climate Change: EPA and
DOE Should Do More to Encourage Progress Under Two Voluntary Programs
(GAO-06-97), which addressed (1) reported changes in federal climate
change funding and (2) the status and progress of two federal voluntary
climate programs.
What GAO Found:
Federal funding for climate change, as reported by OMB, increased from
$2.35 billion in 1993 to $5.09 billion in 2004 (117 percent), or from
$3.28 billion to $5.09 billion (55 percent) after adjusting for
inflation. OMB reports show that, during this period, funding increased
for technology, science, and--before adjusting for inflation--
international assistance. CCSP, which reports only science funding,
generally presented totals that were consistent with OMB‘s, but
provided more detail. However, changes in reporting methods used by
both OMB and CCSP limit the comparability of funding data over time,
and therefore it was unclear whether total funding actually increased
as reported. Furthermore, we were unable to compare changes in the
fourth category (climate-related tax expenditures), because from 1993
to 2004 OMB reported estimates for proposed but not existing tax
expenditures. With regard to individual agencies‘ funding, OMB reported
that 12 of the 14 agencies receiving funding for climate change
programs in 2004 received more funding in that year than they had in
1993, but it is unclear whether funding changed as OMB reported because
of unexplained changes in what was defined as climate change funding.
Reported funding for DOE, the agency with the most reported climate-
related funding in 2004, increased from $963 million to $2.52 billion
(162 percent), or from $1.34 billion to $2.52 billion (88 percent)
after adjusting for inflation. DOE and the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration accounted for 81 percent of the reported increase
in funding from 1993 through 2004. However, because agency funding
totals are composed of individual accounts, changes in the reports‘
contents, such as the unexplained addition of accounts to the
technology category, limit the comparability of agencies‘ funding data
over time, making it difficult to determine if these are real or
definitional increases.
EPA and DOE expected participants in their voluntary climate programs
to complete several program steps within general time frames, but
participants‘ progress in completing those steps within the time frames
was mixed. Furthermore, DOE did not have a system for tracking groups‘
progress in completing program steps, and neither DOE nor EPA had a
written policy specifying the consequences for participants not
proceeding as expected. In addition, EPA and DOE had both estimated the
share of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions attributable to
participants in their respective programs and were working through an
interagency process to quantify emissions reductions attributable to
their programs. However, determining reductions attributable to each
program will be challenging because of the overlap between these
programs and other voluntary programs and because it is difficult to
determine how much of a participant‘s emissions reductions can be
attributed to its participation in the program, since the participant‘s
emissions in the absence of the program cannot be known.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommended actions to improve OMB‘s and CCSP‘s reporting. GAO
recommended that both EPA and DOE develop written policies on what to
do about participants not meeting program expectations. All four
agencies appear to have taken steps to implement our recommendations,
but we have not fully reviewed the extent to which they have done so.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-1126T.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact John Stephenson at (202)
512-3841 or StephensonJ@gao.gov.
[End of Section]
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to participate in the Subcommittee's hearing and to
discuss some of our recent work on federal climate change funding and
voluntary programs.
Increases in the earth's average temperature that have already occurred
over the last 100 years, combined with additional future increases
projected by a consensus of scientists, have the potential to
dramatically change life on earth. For example, changes in the
frequency and intensity of rainfall, both possible effects of climate
change, could affect human health, agriculture, forests, and water
supplies in certain locations. Effects on planetary biodiversity are
projected to be even more pronounced. The Congress and the president
have supported research to improve scientific understanding of the
climate system and to develop new technologies to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. They have also created various federal programs to help
reduce such emissions. These programs are largely voluntary and
encourage private and public sector entities to adopt goals for
reducing emissions.
My remarks today are based on our August 2005[Footnote 1] report on
federal climate change funding from 1993 through 2004 and our April
2006[Footnote 2] report on voluntary programs that encourage industry
participants to set greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals.[Footnote
3] I will focus on (1) how total funding, funding by category, and
funding by agency as reported by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and the Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) changed and the
extent to which such funding data are comparable over time, and (2) the
expectations for, and progress being made by, participants in two
federal voluntary programs-the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA's) Climate Leaders and the Department of Energy's (DOE's) Climate
VISION-and these agencies' estimates of the programs' current coverage
(the share of U.S. emissions that participants contribute to total U.S.
emissions) and impact (emissions reduced).
To determine how federal climate change funding by category--science,
technology, international assistance, and tax expenditures--and agency
changed, we analyzed data from annual OMB and CCSP reports as well as
congressional testimony. To determine the extent to which the data on
climate change funding were comparable over time, we analyzed and
compared the contents of the reports and interviewed responsible
officials. The term "funding" in this testimony reflects discretionary
budget authority, or the authority provided in law to incur financial
obligations that will result in outlays, as reported by OMB and CCSP in
their reports.[Footnote 4] Unless otherwise stated, we report funding
in nominal terms (not adjusted for inflation), and all years refer to
fiscal years.[Footnote 5] To evaluate the EPA and DOE voluntary
programs, we reviewed and analyzed EPA and DOE documents and met with
these agencies' officials. Most of the information in the report,
except where otherwise noted, reflects the status of the two programs
as of November 2005. As of September 20, 2006, an additional 18 firms
had joined Climate Leaders. To assess the reliability of EPA, DOE, and
other data, we spoke with agency officials about data quality control
procedures and reviewed relevant documentation. We determined that the
data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our reports. We
performed our work on the federal funding report between July 2004 and
August 2005 and on the voluntary programs report between June 2004 and
March 2006 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.
In summary, we found that:
² As reported by OMB, federal funding for climate change increased from
$2.35 billion in 1993 to $5.09 billion in 2004 (117 percent), or from
$3.28 billion to $5.09 billion (55 percent) after adjusting for
inflation. During this period, federal funding increased for science,
technology, and before adjusting for inflation, international
assistance, according to OMB reports. CCSP, which reports only science
funding, provided more detail, but generally presented totals that were
consistent with OMB's. However, changes in methods used by both OMB and
CCSP to report funding data made it difficult to compare the data over
time, and therefore, to determine whether total funding actually
increased as reported. We were unable to compare changes in the fourth
category (climate-related tax expenditures), because from 1993 to 2004
OMB did not report estimates for existing tax expenditures. For
individual agencies, OMB reported that 12 of the 14 agencies that
received funding for climate change programs in 2004 received more
funding in that year than they had in 1993. However, unexplained
changes in what was defined as climate change funding made it difficult
to determine whether funding changed to the extent that OMB reported.
Funding for the Department of Energy (DOE), the agency with the most
reported climate-related funding in 2004, increased from $963 million
to $2.52 billion (162 percent), or from $1.34 billion to $2.52 billion
(88 percent) after adjusting for inflation. DOE and the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) accounted for 81 percent of
the reported increase in funding from 1993 through 2004. However,
because agency funding totals are composed of individual accounts,
changes in the reports' contents, such as the unexplained addition of
accounts to the technology category, make it difficult to compare
funding data over time. This, in turn, makes it difficult to determine
if these are real or definitional increases.
² EPA and DOE expected the participants in their voluntary climate
change programs to complete several program steps within general time
frames, but participants' progress in completing those steps within the
time frames varied. Moreover, DOE did not have a system to track the
participants' progress in completing the required steps, and neither
DOE nor EPA had a written policy specifying what actions would be taken
to address participants' not proceeding as expected. In addition, EPA
and DOE had both estimated the share of total U.S. greenhouse gas
emissions that could be attributed to the participants in their
programs and were working through an interagency process to quantify
emissions reductions attributable to their programs. However,
determining reductions attributable to each program will be challenging
because these programs overlap with other voluntary programs and
because it is difficult to determine how much of a participant's
emissions reductions can be attributed to its participation in the
program, versus what they would have done anyway in the absence of the
program.
With regard to reporting of federal climate change funding, we
recommended that OMB and CCSP use the same format for presenting data
from year-to-year, explain changes in report content or format when
they are introduced, and provide and maintain a crosswalk comparing new
and old report structures when changes in report format are introduced.
We also recommended that OMB include data on existing climate-related
tax expenditures in future reports.
Regarding the voluntary programs, we recommended that DOE develop a
system for tracking participants' progress in completing key steps
associated with its Climate VISION Program, and that both EPA and DOE
develop written policies establishing the actions the agencies will
take if participants are not completing program steps on time.
All four agencies appear to have taken steps to implement our
recommendations, but we have not comprehensively reviewed the extent to
which they have done so.
Background:
In 1990, the Congress enacted the Global Change Research Act.[Footnote
6] This act, among other things, required the administration to (1)
prepare and at least every 3 years revise and submit to the Congress a
national global change research plan, including an estimate of federal
funding for global change research activities to be conducted under the
plan; (2) in each annual budget submission to the Congress, identify
the items in each agency's budget that are elements of the United
States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), an interagency long-
term climate change science research program; and (3) report annually
on climate change "expenditures required" for the USGCRP.[Footnote 7]
In response to the requirements of the 1990 act, the administration
reported annually from 1990 through 2004 on funding for climate change
science.[Footnote 8] From 1990 through 2001, the reports presented
detailed science funding data for the USGCRP. Federal climate change
science programs were reorganized in 2001 and 2002. In 2001, the
Climate Change Research Initiative (CCRI) was created to coordinate
short-term climate change research focused on reducing scientific
uncertainty, and in 2002, CCSP was created to coordinate and integrate
USGCRP and CCRI activities. CCSP is a collaborative interagency program
designed to improve the government wide management of climate science
and research.
With respect to federal research, OMB, in annual reports and testimony
before the Congress, reported climate change funding for 1993 through
2004 using four categories:
² Technology, which includes the research, development, and deployment
of technologies and processes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or
increase energy efficiency. Funding for this category focuses on
programs for energy conservation, renewable energy, and related
efforts.
² Science, which includes research and monitoring to better understand
climate change, such as measuring changes in forest cover and land use.
² International assistance, which helps developing countries address
climate change by, for example, providing funds for energy efficiency
programs.
² Tax expenditures related to climate change, which are federal income
tax provisions that grant preferential tax treatment to encourage
emission reductions by, for example, providing tax incentives to
promote the use of renewable energy.[Footnote 9]
Over the same time period, the administration also has reported
annually on funding specifically for climate change science. CCSP is
currently responsible for preparing these climate change science
reports, which duplicate to some extent data provided by OMB in the
science category.
In 1992, the United States ratified the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change, which has as its objective the
stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the earth's
atmosphere but does not impose specific goals or timetables for
limiting emissions. In response, federal agencies developed a plan for
reducing greenhouse gas emissions, primarily through voluntary efforts
by companies, state and local governments, and other organizations.
Since that time, federal agencies have sponsored voluntary programs
that encourage private and public sector entities to curb their
greenhouse gas emissions by providing technical assistance, education,
research, and information sharing. The administration has promoted such
voluntary programs, along with other measures, as an alternative to
mandatory emissions reductions.
In February 2002, the president announced a Global Climate Change
Initiative to reduce the rate of increase in greenhouse gas emissions
in the United States. Specifically, he established the goal of reducing
the emissions intensity of the United States by 18 percent between 2002
and 2012. Emissions intensity is a ratio calculated by dividing
emissions in a given year by economic output for that year. In support
of this goal, the president announced two new voluntary programs aimed
at securing private sector agreements to voluntarily reduce greenhouse
gas emissions or emissions intensity.
² Climate Leaders, an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-sponsored
government-industry partnership established in February 2002, works
with firms[Footnote 10] to develop long-term climate change strategies.
According to EPA officials, as of November 2005, 74 firms were
participating in the program.
² Climate VISION (Voluntary Innovative Sector Initiatives:
Opportunities Now), introduced in February 2003 and coordinated by the
Department of Energy (DOE) in cooperation with EPA and other federal
agencies, works with trade groups[Footnote 11] to develop strategies to
reduce their members' greenhouse gas emissions intensity. Most
industries participating in the program are represented by a single
trade group. As of November 2005, 14 industry sectors and the Business
Roundtable--an association of chief executive officers representing
diverse sectors of the economy--were participating in the program.
According to DOE, the trade groups participating in Climate VISION
typically have high energy requirements.
The Extent of Changes in Federal Climate Change Funding Are Difficult
to Determine:
OMB reports indicated that federal funding on climate change increased
from $2.35 billion in 1993 to $5.09 billion in 2004, or from $3.28
billion to $5.09 billion after adjusting for inflation, and that
funding increased in three of the four categories between 1993 and
2004. However, changes in reporting methods limit the comparability of
funding data over time, making it unclear whether total funding
actually increased as reported. OMB reports also indicated that 12 of
the 14 federal agencies receiving funding for climate change programs
in 2004 received more funding in that year than they had in 1993, but
again, unexplained modifications in the reports' contents limit the
comparability of agencies' funding data, making it difficult to
determine whether funding increased as OMB reported.
Reported Federal Climate Change Funding Increased for Three of the Four
Funding Categories, but Data May Not Be Comparable Over Time:
We found that federal funding for climate change, as reported by OMB,
increased from $2.35 billion in 1993 to $5.09 billion in 2004 (117
percent), or from $3.28 billion to $5.09 billion (55 percent) after
adjusting for inflation, and reported funding increased for three of
the four categories between 1993 and 2004. However, changes in
reporting methods limit the comparability of funding data over time,
and therefore it was unclear whether total funding actually increased
as OMB reported. We were unable to compare changes in the fourth
category-climate-related tax expenditures-because OMB reported
estimates for proposed but not existing tax expenditures from 1993 to
2004. Specifically, for 1993 through 2004, we found the following:
² Technology funding, as reported by OMB, increased from $845 million
to $2.87 billion (240 percent), or from $1.18 billion to $2.87 billion
(143 percent) in inflation-adjusted dollars. The share of total climate
change funding devoted to technology increased from 36 percent to 56
percent. However, we identified several ways that technology funding
presented in OMB's more recent reports may not be comparable to
previously reported technology funding. For example, OMB added accounts
to the technology category that were not reported before or were
presented in different categories and did not explain whether these
accounts reflected the creation of new programs or a decision to count
existing programs for the first time. OMB also expanded the definitions
of some accounts to include more activities without clarifying how the
definitions were changed. Furthermore, OMB reports include a wide range
of federal climate-related programs and activities, some of which-such
as scientific research on global environmental change-are explicitly
climate change programs, whereas others-such as technology initiatives
promoting emissions reduction or encouraging energy conservation-are
not solely for climate change purposes.
² Science funding increased from $1.31 billion to $1.98 billion (51
percent), according to both OMB and CCSP, or from $1.82 billion to
$1.98 billion (9 percent) in inflation-adjusted dollars. However,
science's share of total climate change funding decreased from 56
percent to 39 percent. OMB and CCSP generally presented consistent
climate change science funding totals from 1993 through 2004. CCSP
reports also presented more detailed data, but these data were
difficult to compare over the entire period because CCSP periodically
introduced new categorization methods without explaining how the new
methods related to the ones they replaced. Specifically, over the
period CCSP used seven different methods to present detailed science
funding data, making it impossible to develop consistent funding trends
for the entire timeframe.
² International assistance funding reported by OMB increased from $201
million to $252 million (25 percent), but decreased from $280 million
to $252 million (10 percent) in inflation-adjusted dollars. Moreover,
its share of total climate change funding decreased from 9 percent to 5
percent. International assistance funding reported by OMB was generally
comparable over time, although several new accounts were added without
explanation.
² Tax expenditures were not fully reported by OMB for any year, even
though climate-related tax expenditures amounted to hundreds of
millions of dollars in forgone federal revenue in fiscal year 2004.
Although not required to do so, OMB reported proposed climate-related
tax expenditures. However, OMB did not report revenue loss estimates
for existing climate change-related tax expenditures. Whereas OMB
reported no funding for existing climate change-related tax
expenditures in 2004, the federal budget for that year listed four tax
expenditures related to climate change, including estimated revenue
losses of $330 million for incentives to develop certain renewable
energy sources.
Table 1 shows federal climate change funding by category between 1993
and 2004.
Table 1: Reported Federal Climate Change Funding by Category, Selected
Years:
Discretionary budget authority in millions of dollars.
Category: Technology;
1993: $845;
1997: $1,056;
2001: $1,675;
2004: $2,868.
Category: Science;
1993: 1,306;
1997: 1,656;
2001: 1,728;
2004: 1,976.
Category: International assistance;
1993: 201;
1997: 164;
2001: 218;
2004: 252.
Category: Tax expenditures;
1993: [A];
1997: [A];
2001: [A];
2004: [A].
Total;
1993: $2,352;
1997: $2,876;
2001: $3,603;
2004: $5,090.
Source: GAO analysis of OMB data.
[A] OMB did not report revenue loss estimates for existing climate-
related tax expenditures for this year.
[End of table]
Table 2 shows funding data for the seven largest technology accounts,
which accounted for 92 percent of technology funding in 2004.
Table 2: Reported Technology Funding for Selected Accounts and Years:
Discretionary budget authority in millions of dollars.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Account: Energy Conservation;
1993: $346;
1997: $414;
2001: $810;
2004: $868.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Account: Energy Supply --Fossil Energy Research and Development (R&D);
1993: 250;
1997: 201;
2001: 292;
2004: 455.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Account: Energy Supply --Renewable Energy;
1993: 249;
1997: 244;
2001: 370;
2004: 352.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Account: Science (Fusion, Sequestration, and Hydrogen)a[A];
1993: [B];
1997: [B];
2001: 35;
2004: 333.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Account: Energy Supply - Nuclear[C];
1993: [B];
1997: [B];
2001: 39;
2004: 309.
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
Account: Exploration, Science, and Aeronautics;
1993: [B];
1997: [B];
2001: [B];
2004: 227.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency;
Account: Environmental Programs and Management;
1993: [B];
1997: 70;
2001: 96;
2004: 89.
Agency: Other;
Account: [Empty];
1993: [B];
1997: 127;
2001: 33;
2004: 235.
Agency: Total;
Account: [Empty];
1993: $845;
1997: $1,056;
2001: $1,675;
2004: $2,868.
Source: GAO analysis of OMB data.
[A] Sequestration can be defined as the capture and isolation of gases
that otherwise could contribute to global climate change.
[B] OMB did not report a value in the technology category for this
account for this year.
[C] For 2001 Energy Supply --Nuclear funding, we counted the Nuclear
Energy Research Initiative and Energy Supply --Nuclear budget accounts
as presented by OMB. OMB did not separately present these accounts for
2004, and included funding for the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative
within the Energy Supply--Nuclear account.
[End of table]
OMB and CCSP officials told us that time constraints and other factors
contributed to changes in report structure and content over time. For
example, OMB officials said that the short timeline for completing the
report required by the Congress (within 45 days of submitting the
upcoming fiscal year's budget for the three most recent reports)
limited OMB's ability to analyze data submitted by agencies. OMB and
CCSP officials also noted that each report was prepared in response to
a one-time requirement and that they were not directed to use the same
report format over time or to explain differences in methodology from
one report to another. The director of CCSP told us that changes to
climate change science reports, such as the creation and deletion of
different categorization methods, were made because CCSP was changing
towards a goals-oriented budget, and categorization methods changed as
the program evolved. The director also said that future reports will
explicitly present budget data as it was reported in prior reports to
retain continuity, even if new methods are introduced. Regarding tax
expenditures, OMB officials said that they consistently included in the
reports those proposed tax expenditures where a key purpose was
specifically to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They also stated that
they had not included existing tax expenditures that may reduce
greenhouse gas emissions but that were enacted for other purposes, and
that the Congress had not provided any guidance to suggest that
additional tax expenditure data should be included in the annual
reports.
Reported Funding For Most Agencies Increased, but Unexplained Changes
in Report Content Limit the Comparability of Data Over Time:
OMB reported that 12 of the 14 agencies receiving funding for climate
change programs in 2004 received more funding in that year than they
had in 1993. However, it is unclear whether funding changed as OMB
reported because of, among other things, unexplained changes in what
was defined as climate change funding. Reported funding for the
Department of Energy (DOE), the agency with the most reported climate-
related funding in 2004, increased from $963 million to $2.52 billion
(162 percent), or from $1.34 billion to $2.52 billion (88 percent)
after adjusting for inflation. DOE and NASA accounted for 81 percent of
the reported increase in funding from 1993 through 2004. However,
because agency funding totals are composed of individual accounts,
changes in the reports' contents, such as the unexplained addition of
accounts to the technology category, limit the comparability of
agencies' funding data over time, making it difficult to determine if
these are real or definitional increases. OMB stated that it
consistently reported funding data for the 3 years presented in each of
its reports and that there had been no requirement to use a consistent
format from one report to the next or to explain differences in
methodology from one report to another.
We recommended that OMB and CCSP use the same format for presenting
data from year-to-year, explain changes in report content or format
when they are introduced, and provide and maintain a crosswalk
comparing new and old report structures when changes in report format
are introduced. We also recommended that OMB include data on existing
climate-related tax expenditures in future reports. OMB agreed with the
recommendations relating to report content and format and said it was
studying the other recommendations. CCSP agreed with all of our
recommendations. Both agencies appear to have taken actions in response
to our recommendations, but we have not comprehensively reviewed the
extent to which they may have done so.
Voluntary Programs Have Shown Mixed Progress:
EPA and DOE expect participants in their respective programs to
complete a number of actions within certain timeframes. However,
participants' progress toward completing those actions was mixed, and
neither agency had a written policy for dealing with this situation.
EPA estimated that the first fifty Climate Leaders participants
accounted for at least 8 percent of U.S. emissions on average for the
years 2000 through 2003, and DOE estimated that Climate VISION
participants account for over 40 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas
emissions; both agencies believe these to be conservative estimates.
While EPA and DOE are participating in an interagency process to
estimate the impact of their programs on emissions, we found that
accurately attributing specific emissions reductions to either program
would be difficult.
Some Climate Leaders and Climate VISION Participants Have Not Completed
Program Steps as Soon as Expected, and Neither Agency Had a Written
Policy For Dealing with Such Participants:
EPA and DOE expect participants in their voluntary emissions reduction
programs to complete a number of actions; however, participants'
progress toward completing those actions, as well as the agencies'
efforts to track accomplishments, varied. For example, within about 1
year of joining the program, EPA expects firms to enter into
discussions with the agency to establish an emissions reduction goal
and to complete these negotiations, generally within another year. As
of November 2005, 38 of the 74 firms had established goals, while most
of the other 36 firms, including 13 that joined in 2002, were still
working to establish goals; most of the remaining firms had joined the
program recently and had not yet established goals. EPA officials told
us that they were developing a system for tracking firms' progress in
accomplishing the key steps associated with participating in the
program, but were still in the process of obtaining and validating data
from participants. While EPA officials told us that they would be
willing to remove participants from the program if they were not
progressing as expected, they had not specified the conditions under
which they would do so. DOE asks that trade groups participating in its
Climate VISION program develop a work plan for measuring and reporting
emissions information within about 1 year after joining the program and
report their emissions levels. As of November 2005, 11 of the 15
participating trade groups had completed their work plans and 5 groups
had reported on emissions. As of November 2005, DOE officials said that
the agency did not have a system for tracking how long each group takes
to complete its work plan and report emissions data. Furthermore, while
DOE officials said that the agency would remove groups from the program
if they did not seem to be taking sufficient action, DOE had not yet
established specific deadlines for reporting emissions. Because DOE did
not have a system for tracking how long participants take to complete
key program steps--and neither DOE nor EPA had established written
policies for taking action against participants not progressing as
expected--it will be difficult for them to ensure that all participants
are meeting program expectations.
We recommended that DOE develop a system for tracking participants'
progress in completing key steps associated with its Climate VISION
Program, and that both EPA and DOE develop written policies
establishing the actions the agencies will take if participants are not
completing program steps on time. DOE and EPA appear to have taken
steps to implement our recommendation regarding a written policy, but
we have not conducted a comprehensive review to determine the extent to
which the recommendations have been implemented.
Participants in Both Programs Have Set Quantitative Emissions-Related
Goals:
The specific types of emission reduction goals being established by
Climate Leaders firms and Climate VISION groups varied. Of the 38 firms
participating in Climate Leaders that had established emission
reduction goals as of November 2005, 19 had committed to reduce their
total greenhouse gas emissions, 18 had committed to reduce their
emissions intensity (emissions per unit of output), and 1 firm had
committed to reduce both its total emissions and its emissions
intensity. Furthermore, firms' goals differed in their geographic scope
and the time period they covered. For example, Cinergy Corporation
pledged to reduce its total U.S. domestic greenhouse gas emissions by 5
percent from 2000 to 2010, while Pfizer, Inc., pledged to reduce its
worldwide emissions by 35 percent per dollar of revenue from 2000 to
2007. Table 3 presents information on the 38 firms' goals.
Table 3: Climate Leaders Goals as of November 2005:
Company: 3M;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: 30;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: [Empty];
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions
intensity: [Empty];
Geographic scope of goal: United States: x;
Geographic scope of goal: Global: [Empty];
Time period covered: 2002-07.
Company: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: [Empty];
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: 40;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions
intensity: Manufacturing index;
Geographic scope of goal: United States: [Empty];
Geographic scope of goal: Global: x;
Time period covered: 2002-07.
Company: American Electric Power;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: 4;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: [Empty];
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions
intensity: [Empty];
Geographic scope of goal: United States: x;
Geographic scope of goal: Global: [Empty];
Time period covered: 2001-06.
Company: Ball Corporation;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: [Empty];
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: 16;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions
intensity: Production index;
Geographic scope of goal: United States: x;
Geographic scope of goal: Global: [Empty];
Time period covered: 2002-12.
Company: Bank of America Corporation;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: 9;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: [Empty];
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions
intensity: [Empty];
Geographic scope of goal: United States: x;
Geographic scope of goal: Global: [Empty];
Time period covered: 2004-09.
Company: Baxter International Inc;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: [Empty];
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: 16;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions
intensity: Unit of production value;
Geographic scope of goal: United States: x;
Geographic scope of goal: Global: [Empty];
Time period covered: 2000-05.
Company: Calpine;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: [Empty];
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: 4;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions
intensity: Megawatt hour;
Geographic scope of goal: United States: x;
Geographic scope of goal: Global: [Empty];
Time period covered: 2003- 08.
Company: Caterpillar;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: [Empty];
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: 20;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions
intensity: Dollar of revenue;
Geographic scope of goal: United States: [Empty];
Geographic scope of goal: Global: x;
Time period covered: 2002-10.
Company: Cinergy Corporation;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: 5;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: [Empty];
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions
intensity: [Empty];
Geographic scope of goal: United States: x;
Geographic scope of goal: Global: [Empty];
Time period covered: 2000-10.
Company: The Collins Companies;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: 18;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: [Empty];
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions
intensity: [Empty];
Geographic scope of goal: United States: x;
Geographic scope of goal: Global: [Empty];
Time period covered: 2000-10.
Company: Eastman Kodak Company;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: 10;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: [Empty];
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions
intensity: [Empty];
Geographic scope of goal: United States: [Empty];
Geographic scope of goal: Global: x;
Time period covered: 2002-08.
Company: Exelon Corporation;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: 8;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: [Empty];
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions
intensity: [Empty];
Geographic scope of goal: United States: x;
Geographic scope of goal: Global: [Empty];
Time period covered: 2001-08.
Company: First Environment, Inc;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: Net 0[A];
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: [Empty];
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions
intensity: [Empty];
Geographic scope of goal: United States: x;
Geographic scope of goal: Global: [Empty];
Time period covered: by 2008.
Company: FPL Group, Inc;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: [Empty];
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: 18;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions
intensity: Kilowatt hour;
Geographic scope of goal: United States: x;
Geographic scope of goal: Global: [Empty];
Time period covered: 2001-08.
Company: Frito-Lay, Inc;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: [Empty];
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: 14;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions
intensity: Pound of production;
Geographic scope of goal: United States: x;
Geographic scope of goal: Global: [Empty];
Time period covered: 2002-10.
Company: GAP, Inc;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: [Empty];
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: 11;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions
intensity: Square foot;
Geographic scope of goal: United States: x;
Geographic scope of goal: Global: [Empty];
Time period covered: 2003-08.
Company: General Electric;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: 1;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: [Empty];
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions
intensity: [Empty];
Geographic scope of goal: United States: [Empty];
Geographic scope of goal: Global: x;
Time period covered: 2004-12.
Company: General Motors Corporation;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: 10;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: [Empty];
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions
intensity: [Empty];
Geographic scope of goal: United States: xb;
Geographic scope of goal: Global: [Empty];
Time period covered: 2000-05.
Company: Green Mountain Energy Co;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: Net 0[A];
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: [Empty];
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions
intensity: [Empty];
Geographic scope of goal: United States: x;
Geographic scope of goal: Global: [Empty];
Time period covered: 2005-09.
Company: Hasbro, Inc;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: 30;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: [Empty];
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions
intensity: [Empty];
Geographic scope of goal: United States: x;
Geographic scope of goal: Global: [Empty];
Time period covered: 2000-07.
Company: Holcim (U.S.) Inc;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: [Empty];
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: 12;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions
intensity: Ton of cement;
Geographic scope of goal: United States: x;
Geographic scope of goal: Global: [Empty];
Time period covered: 2000-08.
Company: IBM Corporationc;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: 10;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: 4;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions
intensity: Energy use ;
Geographic scope of goal: United States: [Empty];
Geographic scope of goal: Global: x;
Time period covered: Average annual reduction;
2000-05.
Company: Interface, Inc;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: [Empty];
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: 15;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions
intensity: Unit of production;
Geographic scope of goal: United States: x;
Geographic scope of goal: Global: [Empty];
Time period covered: 2001-10.
Company: International Paper;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: 15;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: [Empty];
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions
intensity: [Empty];
Geographic scope of goal: United States: x;
Geographic scope of goal: Global: [Empty];
Time period covered: 2000-10.
Company: Johnson & Johnson;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: 14;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: [Empty];
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions
intensity: [Empty];
Geographic scope of goal: United States: x;
Geographic scope of goal: Global: [Empty];
Time period covered: 2001-10.
Company: Marriott International, Inc;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: [Empty];
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: 6;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions
intensity: Available room;
Geographic scope of goal: United States: x;
Geographic scope of goal: Global: [Empty];
Time period covered: 2004-10.
Company: Melaver, Inc;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: Net 0[A];
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: [Empty];
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions
intensity: [Empty];
Geographic scope of goal: United States: x;
Geographic scope of goal: Global: [Empty];
Time period covered: 2006-09.
Company: Miller Brewing Company;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: [Empty];
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: 18;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions
intensity: Barrel of production;
Geographic scope of goal: United States: x;
Geographic scope of goal: Global: [Empty];
Time period covered: 2001-06.
Company: National Renewable Energy Lab;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: [Empty];
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: 10;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions
intensity: Square foot;
Geographic scope of goal: United States: x;
Geographic scope of goal: Global: [Empty];
Time period covered: 2000-05.
Company: Pfizer, Inc;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: [Empty];
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: 35;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions
intensity: Dollar of revenue;
Geographic scope of goal: United States: [Empty];
Geographic scope of goal: Global: x;
Time period covered: 2000-07.
Company: PSEG;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: [Empty];
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: 18;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions
intensity: Kilowatt hour;
Geographic scope of goal: United States: x;
Geographic scope of goal: Global: [Empty];
Time period covered: 2000- 08.
Company: Roche Group US Affiliates;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: 10;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: [Empty];
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions
intensity: [Empty];
Geographic scope of goal: United States: x;
Geographic scope of goal: Global: [Empty];
Time period covered: 2001-08.
Company: SC Johnson;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: [Empty];
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: 23;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions
intensity: Pound of product;
Geographic scope of goal: United States: x;
Geographic scope of goal: Global: [Empty];
Time period covered: 2000-05.
Company: Staples, Inc;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: 7;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: [Empty];
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions
intensity: [Empty];
Geographic scope of goal: United States: x;
Geographic scope of goal: Global: [Empty];
Time period covered: 2001-10.
Company: St. Lawrence Cement;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: [Empty];
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: 15;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions
intensity: Ton of product;
Geographic scope of goal: United States: [Empty];
Geographic scope of goal: Global: x;
Time period covered: 2000-10.
Company: Sun Microsystems;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: 20;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: [Empty];
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions
intensity: [Empty];
Geographic scope of goal: United States: x;
Geographic scope of goal: Global: [Empty];
Time period covered: 2002-12.
Company: United Technologies Corporation;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: [Empty];
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: 16;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions
intensity: Dollar of revenue;
Geographic scope of goal: United States: [Empty];
Geographic scope of goal: Global: x;
Time period covered: 2001-06.
Company: Xerox Corporation;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: 10;
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: [Empty];
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions
intensity: [Empty];
Geographic scope of goal: United States: [Empty];
Geographic scope of goal: Global: x;
Time period covered: 2002-12.
Source: GAO analysis of EPA data.
[A] Net zero means that the company will substitute emissions it
produces by some other activity such that no new, additional emissions
are produced. Green Mountain Energy, for example, is substituting
emissions from fossil fuel-based energy, such as coal or gas, with the
purchase of renewable energy that produces few greenhouse gas emissions
relative to fossil fuels.
[B] General Motors pledged to reduce total greenhouse gas emissions
from its North American facilities.
[C] IBM pledged to achieve a reduction in its average annual carbon
dioxide emissions equivalent to 4 percent of the emissions associated
with the company's worldwide energy use. IBM also pledged to reduce its
perfluorocarbon emissions from its semiconductor manufacturing
processes by 10 percent from 2000 to 2005.
[End of table]
In contrast to EPA's program, 14 of the 15 trade groups participating
in DOE's Climate VISION established an emissions-related goal in
collaboration with DOE or another federal agency upon joining the
program. (The remaining group, the Business Roundtable, did not
establish a quantitative emissions goal because of the diversity of its
membership). According to a DOE official, participants need not
establish new goals as a condition of joining the program. Nine of the
14 groups had set goals to improve their emissions intensity, 2 groups
had established a goal of reducing emissions of specific greenhouse
gases, 2 groups had set goals to improve energy efficiency, and 1 group
had established a goal of both reducing its total emissions and
improving its energy efficiency. For example, the American Forest &
Paper Association pledged to reduce emissions intensity by 12 percent
between 2002 and 2012, while the American Iron and Steel Institute
agreed to a 10-percent, sector wide increase in energy efficiency by
2012. Some of these groups stated that their goals would be difficult
to achieve, however, without reciprocal federal actions, such as tax
incentives or regulatory relief. Table 4 presents information on
Climate VISION industry groups' goals.
Table 4: Climate VISION Trade Groups' Goals as of November 2005:
Industry/participant: Aluminum; Aluminum Association;
Type of goal: Reduce emissions: [Empty];
Type of goal: Reduce emissions: intensity: 53%;
Type of goal: Improve energy efficiency: [Empty];
Goal metric: Combined direct carbon emissions intensity based on PFC
reductions and reduced anode carbon consumption;
Start and end dates: 1990-2010.
Industry/: participant: Automobiles; Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers;
Type of goal: Reduce emissions: [Empty];
Type of goal: Reduce emissions: intensity: 10% ;
Type of goal: Improve energy efficiency: [Empty];
Goal metric: Carbon dioxide emissions per vehicle produced;
Start and end dates: 2002-12.
Industry/: participant: Cement; Portland Cement Association;
Type of goal: Reduce emissions: [Empty];
Type of goal: Reduce emissions: intensity: 10%;
Type of goal: Improve energy efficiency: [Empty];
Goal metric: Carbon dioxide emissions per ton of cementitious product
produced or sold;
Start and end dates: 1990-2020.
Industry/: participant: Chemicals; American Chemistry Council;
Type of goal: Reduce emissions: [Empty];
Type of goal: Reduce emissions: intensity: 18%[A];
Type of goal: Improve energy efficiency: [Empty];
Goal metric: Greenhouse gas emissions intensity[B];
Start and end dates: 1990-2012.
Industry/: participant: Electric power; American Public Power
Association; Edison Electric Institute; Electric Power Supply
Association; Large Public Power Council; National Rural Electric
Cooperative Association; Nuclear Energy Institute; Tennessee Valley
Authority;
Type of goal: Reduce emissions: [Empty];
Type of goal: Reduce emissions: intensity: The equivalent of; 3 to 5%;
Type of goal: Improve energy efficiency: [Empty];
Goal metric: Ratio of carbon equivalent emissions to generation in
megawatt hours;
Start and end dates: 2002-02 to 2010- 12.
Industry/: participant: Forest products; American Forest & Paper Assn;
Type of goal: Reduce emissions: [Empty];
Type of goal: Reduce emissions: intensity: 12%;
Type of goal: Improve energy efficiency: [Empty];
Goal metric: Greenhouse gas intensity;
Start and end dates: 2000-12.
Industry/: participant: Iron and steel; American Iron and Steel
Institute;
Type of goal: Reduce emissions: [Empty];
Type of goal: Reduce emissions: intensity: [Empty];
Type of goal: Improve energy efficiency: 10%;
Goal metric: Millions of British thermal units per ton of steel
produced;
Start and end dates: 2002-12.
Industry/: participant: Lime; National Lime Association;
Type of goal: Reduce emissions: [Empty];
Type of goal: Reduce emissions: intensity: 8%;
Type of goal: Improve energy efficiency: [Empty];
Goal metric: Fuel used per ton of lime produced;
Start and end dates: 2002-12.
Industry/: participant: Magnesium; International Magnesium Assn;
Type of goal: Reduce emissions: 100%;
Type of goal: Reduce emissions: intensity: [Empty];
Type of goal: Improve energy efficiency: [Empty];
Goal metric: Sulfur hexafluoride emissions;
Start and end dates: by; 2010[C].
Industry/: participant: Minerals; Industrial Minerals Association North
America;
Type of goal: Reduce emissions: [Empty];
Type of goal: Reduce emissions: intensity: 4.2%;
Type of goal: Improve energy efficiency: [Empty];
Goal metric: Greenhouse gas emissions from fuel combustion;
Start and end dates: 2002-12.
Industry/: participant: Mining; National Mining Association;
Type of goal: Reduce emissions: [Empty];
Type of goal: Reduce emissions: intensity: [Empty];
Type of goal: Improve energy efficiency: 10%;
Goal metric: Energy efficiency;
Start and end dates: 2002-12.
Industry/: participant: Mining; National Mining Association;
Type of goal: Reduce emissions: 25 MMTCE;
Type of goal: Reduce emissions: intensity: [Empty];
Type of goal: Improve energy efficiency: [Empty];
Goal metric: Methane emissions in million metric tons carbon dioxide
equivalent/year;
Start and end dates: 2002-12[D].
Industry/: participant: Mining; National Mining Association;
Type of goal: Reduce emissions: Oil and gas: 2 MMTCE;
Type of goal: Reduce emissions: intensity: Oil and gas: [Empty];
Type of goal: Improve energy efficiency: Oil and gas: [Empty];
Goal metric: Oil and gas: Million metric tons of carbon equivalent;
Start and end dates: Oil and gas: 2002-15[E].
Industry/: participant: Oil and gas; American Petroleum Institute;
Type of goal: Reduce emissions: [Empty];
Type of goal: Reduce emissions: intensity: [Empty];
Type of goal: Improve energy efficiency: 10%;
Goal metric: Energy efficiency;
Start and end dates: 2002-12.
Industry/: participant: Railroads; American Association of Railroads;
Type of goal: Reduce emissions: [Empty];
Type of goal: Reduce emissions: intensity: 18%;
Type of goal: Improve energy efficiency: [Empty];
Goal metric: Transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions intensity
adjusted for traffic levels in ton miles;
Start and end dates: 2002-12.
Industry/: participant: Semiconductors; Semiconductor Industry Assn;
Type of goal: Reduce emissions: 10%;
Type of goal: Reduce emissions: intensity: [Empty];
Type of goal: Improve energy efficiency: [Empty];
Goal metric: PFC emissions in million metric tons of carbon equivalent;
Start and end dates: 1995-2010.
Sources: Climate VISION web site.
[A] According to the American Chemistry Council (ACC), the U.S.
chemistry industry reduced its greenhouse gas intensity by 12 percent
from 1990 to 2000, with projections to 2002.
[B] ACC measures its greenhouse gas emissions intensity using a special
index that is particularly suited for an industry with a diverse
product base. The index measures changes in the physical quantity of
production, and where these data are unavailable, the index is based on
changes in electricity consumption and production worker hours.
[C] The International Magnesium Association committed to eliminate all
SF6 emissions by 2010 and did not define a baseline year because of the
nature of its goal.
[D] The National Mining Association committed to maintain annual
methane emissions reductions achieved since 1990.
[E] The National Mining Association committed to maximize efforts to
reduce annual carbon reductions projected as a result of the
partnership with DOE. These projections are 600,000 metric tons of
carbon equivalent by 2010 and 2 million metric tons by 2015.
[End of table]
Both Agencies Had Estimated Their Programs' Coverage and Were Working
to Estimate Their Impact, But It Will Be Difficult to Attribute
Specific Emissions Reductions From These Programs:
EPA and DOE both estimated the share of total U.S. greenhouse gas
emissions attributable to participants in their respective programs and
were working to develop an estimate of the programs' impacts. EPA
estimated that Climate Leaders participants accounted for at least 8
percent of U.S. emissions. According to EPA, this was a conservative
estimate, because it was based solely on emissions from the program's
first 50 participants. DOE estimated that Climate VISION participants
accounted for over 40 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and
noted that this was a conservative estimate. Both agencies were
participating in an interagency process to estimate the effect of their
programs on reducing emissions, which was expected to be completed in
2006. However, preparing accurate estimates of these programs' impacts
will be difficult. First, there is considerable overlap between these
two programs and other voluntary programs. For example, 60 of the 74
Climate Leaders participants also participated in one or more other EPA
programs, and 3 of the 14 Climate VISION participants with quantitative
goals also participated in EPA voluntary programs. Such overlap makes
it difficult to determine the effects that are attributable to a given
program. Second, it will be difficult to determine how much of a firm's
or trade group's emissions reductions can be attributed to its
participation in the program because the level of a participant's
emissions in the absence of the program is unknown. For example, higher
energy prices or changes in business operations could lead to emissions
reductions, making it difficult to distinguish reductions attributable
to participation in the program versus other causes.
Conclusions:
In conclusion, we found that the lack of consistency and clarity in
OMB's and CCSP's reports made it difficult to identify trends in
federal climate change funding. A better understanding of these
expenditures is needed before it is possible to assess CCSP's and other
federal agencies' progress towards their climate change goals. We
therefore made a total of seven recommendations to OMB and three to
CCSP to clarify how they present climate change funding information.
OMB agreed with most of our recommendations and CCSP agreed with all of
our recommendations. Both agencies appear to have taken steps to
implement our recommendations, but we have not comprehensively reviewed
the extent to which they have done so.
We found that opportunities remain to improve the progress of both
voluntary programs, since some industry participants in both programs
appeared not to be progressing at the rate expected by the agencies. We
also found that it will be difficult for the agencies to estimate the
emissions reductions attributable to their programs, due to overlaps
between organizations participating in more than one voluntary program
and to the fact that it was difficult to know how much of a
participant's emissions reductions were a direct result of the program
or other factors, such as higher energy prices, which generally lead to
lower emissions. Therefore, we recommended that DOE develop a system
for tracking participants' progress in completing key steps associated
with the program, and that both EPA and DOE develop written policies
that establish the actions the agencies will take if participants are
not completing program steps on time. EPA did not comment on our
recommendation; DOE stated that it agreed with our recommendation
regarding a tracking system and would consider our recommendation
regarding establishing a written policy. We have not fully reviewed the
extent to which the recommendations have been implemented.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased
to respond to any questions you or other Members of the Subcommittee
may have.
Contact and Staff Acknowledgements:
For further information regarding this testimony, please contact me at
(202) 512-3841 or stephensonj@gao.gov. John Healey, Anne K. Johnson,
and Vincent P. Price made key contributions to this testimony. John
Delicath, Karen Keegan, and Charles Egan also made important
contributions.
(360768):
FOOTNOTES
[1] U.S. Government Accountability Office, Climate Change: Federal
Reports on Climate Change Funding Should be Clearer and More Complete.
GAO-05-461 (Washington, D.C.: August 25, 2005).
[2] U.S. Government Accountability Office, Climate Change: EPA and DOE
Should Do More to Encourage Progress Under Two Voluntary Programs. GAO-
06-97 (Washington, D.C.: April 25, 2006).
[3] For the sake of consistency, we describe both Climate Leaders and
Climate VISION participants' targets as goals, even though DOE
describes Climate VISION participants' targets as commitments.
[4] An OMB official stated that there is no mandatory budget authority
for climate change programs.
[5] When we adjusted for inflation, we used a fiscal year price index
that we calculated based on a calendar year price index published by
the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis. Unless
otherwise specified, figures represent actual funding (not estimates),
with the exception of 1993, 1994, and 2004, where we present estimated
funding reported by CCSP because actual data are not available. For the
purposes of this testimony, the term "agency" includes executive
departments and agencies, and we use the term "account" to describe the
budget accounts, line items, programs, and activities presented in OMB
and CCSP reports. Throughout this testimony, we characterize all
climate change science reports from 1993 through 2004 as CCSP reports,
even though CCSP has been in existence only since 2002, and reports
prior to 2002 were published by a predecessor organization. Totals and
percentages may not add due to rounding.
[6] Pub. L. No. 101-606, 104 Stat. 3096 (1990) (partially terminated
pursuant to the Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995,
Pub. L. No. 104-66, § 3003 (1995)).
[7] The annual reporting requirement for climate change expenditures
was terminated effective May 15, 2000. The reporting requirement had
called for "(A) the amounts spent during the fiscal year most recently
ended; (B) the amounts expected to be spent during the current fiscal
year; and (C) the amounts requested for the fiscal year for which the
budget is being submitted."
[8] To maintain consistency with OMB data, which are available from
1993 to 2004, we reviewed reported science funding from 1993 to 2004.
[9] The revenue losses resulting from provisions of federal tax laws
may, in effect, be viewed as expenditures channeled through the tax
system. The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974,
as amended, requires that the budget include the level of tax
expenditures under existing law. Like the annual lists of tax
expenditures prepared by the Department of the Treasury, this testimony
considers only tax expenditures related to individual and corporate
income taxes and does not address excise taxes.
[10] For the sake of brevity, we refer to all participants in the
Climate Leaders programs as firms, even though one of them, the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, is a federal research laboratory.
[11] We refer to all Climate VISION participants as trade groups, even
though one participant, the Tennessee Valley Authority, is a utility.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site.
To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon,
go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
